[Scape]

For those that thought Bush was bad wait till they get a load of this.

[Mr_Canada]

Lol @ land of the free.

[Freakinoldguy]

This is definately a case of the "be careful what you wish for cause you may just get it" syndrome, eh democrats. I hope Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon are the first fuckers that they use this on.

Okay, maybe not till the Republicans get back in power but, if I was Glenn Beck I'd be concerned.

Well done Barry. You're gonna give the Repulicans Presidential hopefuls life yet.

[Unsound]

I doubt it'll do too much to help out the republicans. Feel free to correct me, but Ron Paul seems like the only candidate who can credibly say he wouldn't sign such a law in the name of "security".

[Psudo]

It seems bizarre to me that the ability to capture prisoners of war is considered an erosion of civil rights. Did suspected US traitors to the Nazi or North Korean cause get more due process rights during those wars than this provides to suspected US traitors to al-Qaeda's or the Taliban's cause?

[Thanos]

^ Call it the Glenn-Greenwaldization of the war effort. Some people won't be happy until they parachute the same number of defence lawyers for the enemy into a war zone as they do the number of our soldiers who are supposed to go out and destroy them. They genuinely consider the past forty-odd years of the paralyzation of our police and courts to be a raging success so it's no surprise that they want to move on and do the same thing to the military. This is the sort of left-wing nuttiness that makes me wish I could still call myself a right winger.

[Canadian_Mind]

Thanos wrote:

This is the sort of left-wing nuttiness that makes me wish I could still call myself a right winger.

Now your a fascist. This shit isn't an issue for you is it?

[Scape]

That nuttiness is based upon subjective criteria. If all it takes is a mention of terrorism to bypass due process then it will be used to get results. Juking stats happens all the time but now you can just make people criminals by fiat. Wasn't the magna carta inspired in opposition of exactly that cause?

[xerxes]

From what I've heard though, Obama is going to sign a signing statement as to the most odious part of this bill. How much that will modify (if at all) will remain to be seen.

[SprCForr]

Wow, more breathless talking head faux outrage/stupidity.

An American actively supporting or aiding Al Queda or a supporting groups who is captured during an operation by the US Armed Forces will be treated as a POW.

Friggin media still doesn't or won't understand the difference between "may" and "shall" which is a big difference.

[Unsound]

I think that diference between how prisoners are treated now and in previous wars is that this "war on terror" is so ill-defined that it can be kept up for generations. POWs being treated as POWs during say WW2 was ok because there was a finite, easily defined, end to that war. Now... who knows... ther will always be a "war on terror". As long as people in power need an enemy there will be a war on terror.

[Psudo]

Containment of global Communism was pretty ill-defined. This war in Afghanistan is no more nebulous than the Korean or Vietnam Wars. There were prisoners of war in those wars. If there's a difference, let's hear it.

[ShepherdsDog]

Scape wrote:

That nuttiness is based upon subjective criteria. If all it takes is a mention of terrorism to bypass due process then it will be used to get results. Juking stats happens all the time but now you can just make people criminals by fiat. Wasn't the magna carta inspired in opposition of exactly that cause?

The magna carta was created by warlords for warlords who didn't like a central authority infringing on their rights to run their little fiefdoms the way they wanted to. You're fooling yourself if you think it was written with commoners in mind...most of whom were serfs. John was much maligned in history.

[Unsound]

Psudo wrote:

Containment of global Communism was pretty ill-defined. This war in Afghanistan is no more nebulous than the Korean or Vietnam Wars. There were prisoners of war in those wars. If there's a difference, let's hear it.

The cold war involved actual nation-states. The war on terror doesn't.

That's all I have for now. Still have a Christmas hangover.

[BartSimpson]

Obama is supposedly intending this to be used against terrorists of the Islamic bent, but Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have made hints in their speeches that it will also be used against 'far more dangerous' militia types. Meaning that I expect Obama's second term to feature bloodbaths like Waco and Ruby Ridge.